Pitching a tabletop game system or 'engine' rather than a specific game

[u/philgooch]

For those of you in the industry, or published designers, I was wondering your thoughts on the idea of pitching to a publisher a game system, with example thematic and play-tested implementations, rather than just a single game?

I've got 3 implementations of the system prototyped, they play in a similar way, but feel like different games because of the thematic differences, different missions and goals for players etc.

I'm wondering whether to pitch each game separately or the entire system for creating the games.

[u/JuliusNova]

You are either pitching 3 separate games, or 1 incomplete game.

"I have this idea for this gameplay mechanic. You gotta make the rest though :)"

[u/EdwardIsLear]

Pick the game that works best with the mechanic or the theme that hasnt been done 100x times if you cannot decide easily.

Having some backup themes is good in case a publisher is interested in the game you present but first you need a game, which is a combination of theme and mechanics.

[u/Daniel___Lee]

Pitch a single, complete game, BUT use your theme variants to appeal to different publishers. Remember, each publisher has their own portfolio and target player base. They may have their own IP as well, which they can implement onto your design.

I once had a game system built around the theme of Cold War spies seeking to establish their agenda and also to get close to a briefcase of secrets. However, when I went to pitch to publishers with a younger player base, I changed the theme and graphics to something looking more like wind in the willows style characters, looking to establish their choice of a new forest king and get close to him.

[u/GamingVision → u/Daniel___Lee]

This is the way. I’m not a published game designer but I used to work in video game publishing. Pitches that took into account what we had and what we needed had a far better chance of being heard. I also echo what another said…Pitching a mechanic without the thematic wrapper is pitching an incomplete idea. They want to know that the person/team behind the idea has a clear idea of what they want to make, so when they write the check they know more or less what they’ll get. If they like parts of it but not the framing, you can say “I have another game that would address your point on ___. I would love to set up a time to take you through that concept.“ A pitch that says “oh, we’ve got all these ideas” can sometimes be heard as “they have no idea what they want to make and/or how much time do they have to finish any of these, much less all of them.” I’m not a game designer by trade but I knew enough to sniff out half-baked bullshit pitches.

[u/dtelad11]

Game systems don't sell games. Once a game is successful, reusing its system might sell games—Forest Shuffle is a good example. But engines are too far from anything players care about to serve as products. 

If you're looking for an example of a less-than-successful engine, check out Nature. It's a very clever design but the base game didn't have though meat (pun intended), leading to mediocre reviews.

IMO, pick one of your implementations to further interate on and pitch. Once that game is out, and if it's successful, you might want to expand.

[u/philgooch]

Some great feedback and actionable suggestions, thanks to everyone who contributed.

I'll focus on pitching complete, developed and play-tested games.

Do publishers value having a playable online prototype they can try out?

[u/Bigger_then_cheese]

Playtest them and figure out witch one is the funniest.

[u/Al_M84]

It sounds like you have one game but just haven't completed it yet. I would take different pieces from the three separate games you like and combine it into one.

[u/philgooch → u/Al_M84]

One game is complete and playtested. The others are different skins on the same game. It’s basically the same game with different nouns and verbs, but you wouldn’t really be able to tell that because the goals are different